IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 9, 2011
MICHAEL A. COX, PETITIONER,
DEATH PENALTY CASE WARDEN, SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carolyn K. Delaney United States Magistrate Judge
On October 31, 2011, petitioner filed his traverse and a motion for discovery. (Dkt. Nos. 102, 103.). In addition to hearing argument on petitioner's discovery motion, on December 14, 2011 at 10:00 a.m.,*fn1 the court will conduct a scheduling conference. In his opposition to petitioner's discovery motion, respondent shall include a proposed schedule for addressing upcoming issues, including the procedural defenses raised in the answer, the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), discovery, any motion for an evidentiary hearing, and the merits of petitioner's claims. In his reply brief, petitioner shall include a response to respondent's proposals and, to the extent he disagrees, make new proposals. The parties scheduling proposals shall specifically reference the effect of Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) on all aspects of this proceeding.
IT IS SO ORDERED.